All you need is basic arithmetic.

January, 2009 - 32 Million
August, 2012 - 47 Million

47 - 32 = 15 Million added by Obama. Roughly a 50% increase in less than 4 years.

And what's wrong with Google searches?  They give the reader both sides of the story rather than cherry picking your favorite spin sites.

Regarding your rate of increase argument you have no basis for asserting that the change of sign for the derivative is a result of an improving economy.  There are any number of possible explanations.  Off the top of my head it could simply be a reflection that the potential set of people willing to take a handout by living off the government teat is reaching saturation.

It means that the Democrats may be reaching the limits of effectiveness of the free handout strategy and that would be encouraging news, I agree.

You seem confused.  Either that or you are attempting to obfuscate the issues here.  Let us just keep things clean and simple:

1) I had previously posted an article in which I was discussing the effects of the Obama spending on the public debt.  In that article I focused on using statistics compiled by others that, quite logically, set the line of demarcation between Presidents at their inauguration dates.  A simple straight forward standard.

2) When this standard was not favorable to Skymutt's position at the time he complained and argued instead that Obama had inherited the policies of Bush so Obama should not have to take the blame for things that happened on his watch (like the insane levels of spending in the bailouts he implemented).  So this is the point where Skymutt introduced the new "standard" that a President gets a pass on everything for some amount of time.  He can try to squirm but that is what he did.

To be clear, under Skymutt's preferred "standard" an incoming president gets an open ended and unbounded free pass on everything so that there are no goalposts at all to worry about.  I have never claimed that Skymutt had said anything about focusing on policy changes as being a dividing line, that was my addition to improve HIS standard and try to make it objective.

3) I recently posted a few additional points about Obama and his utter failures in office.  Skymutt didn't like having these pointed out and started to whine.  When the discussion ensued he started whining that I was being inconsistent.  So at that point I adopted HIS preferred standard that an incoming president gets a free pass for some amount of time.

The open ended part of Skymutt's standard was obviously unacceptable so I, not Skymutt, adopted as the line of demarcation an objective standard: the point at which the incoming president makes a relevant and substantive policy change affecting the topic being discussed.  This seems a perfect compromise.  It directly accommodates Skymutt's point that the incoming president inherits their predecessor's policies but tries to draw an objectively discernible point at which to start the incoming president's culpability on the issue.

For some reason Skymutt prefers not to have objective standards, but instead wishes to maintain vague, ill defined notions so that he can have the freedom to argue whatever he wants without being tied down.  To be fair, that statement is only half true.  As we see above Skymutt is currently arguing for an objective standard (ironically the one that I had originally advocated and he then railed against).  So it appears that half the time he wants a vague, ill-defined standard with lots of wiggle room and the other half of the time he wants to be able to flip back and forth to the standard that best serves his purpose du jour.

I reject this sloppy, self-serving way of reasoning. It represents the very antithesis of reasoned argument and discourse.

4) I am perfectly fine with keeping the math simple.  I have never argued otherwise.  Skymutt is obfuscating matters here by needlessly tying the concept of using simple math to the notion that a president's culpability clock begins on inauguration day.  I don't recall having ever tied those two together as Skymutt is attempting to do.

Simple raw counts and rates are fine with me.  The thing that we are disagreeing about is where the clock actually starts and ends for a given president.  That point has nothing to do with whether the resulting analysis is based on simple, easily understood arithmetic or intellectual obfuscation.

5) Bottom line: I have now proposed two objective standards for when to start a given president's culpability clock:

1. On inauguration day because this is when most statistics are naturally compiled and reported.

2. The point at which a president effects a relevant and substantive policy change affecting the topic of discussion.

At various times Skymutt has rejected both of these standards in spite of the fact that the second was clearly an attempt to specifically address his stated concerns with the first.

I reject Skymutt's self-serving attempts to flip back and forth between standards as it suits him.  I've moved on to the second standard precisely because it represents the better standard since it addresses the shortcomings that Skymutt previously pointed out with the first standard.  Shortcomings that Skymutt seems to want to exploit in the discussion at hand.  Going back to the first standard would clearly be a step backwards in that respect.  I prefer to move forward.

*The actual claim you made originally was that Clinton had "essentially
the same intelligence information that Bush had."  In the NY Times, it
was reported that Bush's briefs actually contained several other
elements beyond the three that you mention in the prior post.

I never actually read the NY Times article.  I didn't need to in order to make my response.  I merely focused on the bits you had included.  I have now skimmed the article.  Here is my response to it:

1) A hatchup job op ed piece in a liberal rag.  Yawn.  This is exactly what I would expect to find.

2) This hack has not disclosed his sources and he admits that they are limited by the fact that the content of the documents he purports to know have not been declassified.  We have no way to know if what he is saying is even true.

3) Regarding this:

By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

As I've already shown this is essentially just repeating things that Clinton already told him, right down to the word "imminent" from Richard Clarke less than 1 week into his administration.

Issuing PDBs that simply repeat the same information does not constitute providing new information.  Rewording the same information does not provide new information.

4) Regarding this:

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster

Totally irrelevant to our discussion.  The point is that Clinton had the same intelligence that Bush did.  I grant that Clinton believed the intelligence he had and so he should have acted with the proper sense of urgency based on what he believed.

5) Regarding this:

including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

This is potentially new since it was from an interview that month.  It claims that Bin Laden said he was planning a "coming attack".  It doesn't even mention the US.  It could have been an attack on anybody.  But even if we assume he meant the US he had already been saying that for years.  It's not new information.  Clinton clearly knew that bin Laden was planning to attack us.

We also learn that bin Laden was having trouble recruiting because something was up in Chechnya.  Was this unspecified attach something in Chechnya?  The US?  Seems kinda not actionable to me, except to note the Chechnya part.

6) Regarding this:

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Note that they are simply repeating information at this point from previous reports.  Repeating from what?  From things Clinton had already told him.

Clinton had already warned him of concerns over all forms of WMDs for God's sake.  Saying "dramatic consequences" doesn't really seem to change anything.

Delayed?  Will occur soon?  Flexible timing?  It all sounds kind of wishy washy to me and it probably did to Bush as well.  Maybe that's why he thought they were insufficient?

7) Regarding this:

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action.

Why would they?  At this point Bush was taking EXACTLY the same level of action and urgency that Clinton had taken.  Clinton is the guy with all the experience at this point.  His team called the threat "imminent".  If adjustments to the national security posture were needed one would only assume that Clinton had already issued the required orders.  So far there is no new information to act on beyond what Clinton had already done.

8) Regarding this:

That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.

Umm, remember that recruiting problem that bin Laden was complaining about?  What was the competing region?  Chechnya?  So putting myself in Bush's shoes at this point I am thinking ...

a) I know that things are gearing up in Chechnya.

b) I know that bin Laden is aware of what is going on in Chechnya.

c) Some guy, in Chechnya, with ties to al Qaeda tells his followers, in Chechnya, that there would be "very big news".

Personally, I'm thinking that something is going on IN CHECHNYA.  Nothing here suggests anything about the US.  Although in retrospect it may have been wise to beef up the security at our embassies IN AND AROUND CHECHNYA.

9) Regarding this:

On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.

"The attack"?  What attack?  The one the al Qaeda guy in Chechnya was talking about?  This is written like it was obvious that "the attack" meant some attack on the US.  Even with the benefit of hindsight that seems like a bit of a leap.

10) And finally regarding this:

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert.

So, the Clinton administration had already indicated that it believed there was an "imminent" threat by the time Bush took office.  If some "high alert status" should have been raised within the government why had it not already been raised by Clinton?  After all, Clinton had essentially the same intelligence that Bush had.